September 15, 2011

Downtown Alcohol Policy Coordinator Mark Woulf said police wanted the ability to enter house parties with visible kegs, especially in situations where kegs could entice more people to come and make parties "even more out of control."

Downtown Alcohol Policy Coordinator, huh? Only a dysfunctional society could conceive a requirement for such a bureau. Does Mark Woulf receive a salary for this, and if so how will he manage to live it down. Decent people used to make pilgrimages of contrition for less, on their knees yet!

Wouldn't it be better to set up a website called KegWatch? Good citizens could become municipal rats, stool pigeons, and squealers. They can report on kegs in the windows, keg sales, and people carrying kegs.

They can also report rumors of kegs, forwarded emails regarding kegs, local websites mentioning kegs, and anything keg related.

Seriously, this will only spur the development of faux furniture, which will actually mask the presence of kegs, which would otherwise be seen through windows.

In my day, in the now demolished Ogg Hall dormitory I recall one fellow who placed a full-size refrigerator in the closet space of this tiny dorm room, drilled a hole in the door and plumbed a tap there. It held a quarter-barrel, and there was beer-on-tap in that room 24x7.

I recall one fellow who placed a full-size refrigerator in the closet space of this tiny dorm room, drilled a hole in the door and plumbed a tap there. It held a quarter-barrel, and there was beer-on-tap in that room 24x7.

When we had parties in the Penn State Dorms, the keg was always in the 21-yo's room, and the spigot was threaded through the wall via electrical conduits to the room next door where the party was.

To be fair, sort of, alcohol abuse is a significant problem at the UW. Not that it's a new problem, or likely to go away, or anything like that, but the city does like to be seen trying to do something about it. I don't know if undergrads are dying here from alcohol poisoning, or falls while drunk, like they do at my alma mater, though.

Police need to be public servants. As for the kegs being visable, all the kids need to do is make them not visable (Quayle's suggestion is a great one!). The police probably can get probable cause to investigate any party with more than a dozen people anyway (or easily get a warrant).

"As the T-shirts say, "Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be a convenience store!"

Me and the deer hunting buddies have an ATFE (explosives) party every summer. We do some target shooting at exploding targets, then we drink and smoke cigars after all the firearms are stowed. We also dine a variety of grilled, smoked or salted meats procured from the previous hunting seasons.

To be fair, sort of, alcohol abuse is a significant problem at the UW. Not that it's a new problem, or likely to go away, or anything like that, but the city does like to be seen trying to do something about it. I don't know if undergrads are dying here from alcohol poisoning, or falls while drunk, like they do at my alma mater, though.

"To be fair, sort of, alcohol abuse is a significant problem at the UW."

No doubt, as it is at most universities. The trouble is there's a wink, wink, nod, nod attitude towards it.

People support alcohol abuse at universities. Universities make money off of being known as places where people abuse alcohol. I would guess that abusing alcohol and getting laid are far higher on the list of reasons the majority of students want to go to college than getting a good education.

So, the policy coordinator (Downtown) isn't really about coordinating the legal laws about drinking. The policy is to keep the underage drinking from causing riots or death.

The downtown descriptor suggests that there are other Alcohol Policy Coordinators. As others ahve stated, this is the real concern. I wonder how much money is being wasted on his salary? But Wisconsin is just rolling in dough right now anyway, right?

Also, does that mean the uptown, midtown, or suburb coordinators don't buy-in to this policy??

If Universities cared about alcohol abuse they would suspend, discipline, or kick out any underaged student caught drinking. The 21+ year olds by themselves couldn't sustain the culture, so most alcohol abuse would no longer be a problem.

As MM said, this is a significant problem (large house-parites, that is), off-campus - especially with the under-21 crowd. I'll have to say, though, that as an alumna who participated, this seems easy enough to get around. I'll also say, that I was part of a group who was able to got a 1/4 barrel into football game, back in the day.

What I also want to know is behind what closed doors, in what secret meeting, is the alcohol policy itself actually coordinated?

And can someone get a degree in Coordinating Alcohol Policy? Also, does this policy have a diversity clause, so that one can go to an alcohol oriented function downtown and not be greeted by kegs of only bud light?

I went to SIU back when it was famous for it's Halloween parties and was consistently in the top 10 for party schools in the country.

We, as freshmen, would head over to the off-campus housing areas where all the upperclassmen lived and simply party hop. A lot of the fun was simply going treasure-hunting for parties...you had no idea who you were going to meet or what was going to happen, but you could count on a dozen or so parties going on at any given evening Thursday through Saturday.

I have no idea how social media would effect that fun in discovery. Frankly, SIU has fallen from it's former glory as far as partying goes.

The real enemy is the federal government, forcing the 21 drinking age on us. These kids should be able to drink in the local bars. And let the police worry about whatever bad things people start doing after they get drunk.

From the article: John Doe investigations are secret proceedings in which witnesses can be subpoenaed and compelled to testify under oath about potential criminal matters and are forbidden from talking publicly about the case. Sources said prosecutors have been looking into whether county staffers were doing political work while on the clock and failing to do county jobs.

While I think it should be forbidden, I'd bet a high percentage of county staffers (city, state and federal, too) participate in political activity while on the clock. Plus, this is a lot of resources spent on a minor issue.

The real enemy is the federal government, forcing the 21 drinking age on us.

Yes.

I hear that the daughter is drinking now that she is in the dorms. I believe she does what is called pre-drinking, where you drink before you go out with friends, and then don't drink at the party. Which is a good tactic, I think, unless you start drinking at the party too.

Completely illegal of course. And there are all sorts of University fines if you are caught -- but they punish the bad behavior that results, not the actual drinking, which I think is sensible.

Let me know when this former aide's actions rise above the level of unpunished death threats while at work for the state or Dem Shelly "“We are not supposed to use school email, but ... I don’t frankly care" Moore's campaign.

When my mom was 18 the drinking age in Illinois was 18 for women and 21 for men (the age of majority for each gender.)

When my uncle (3-1/2 years older than me - Mom's the oldest, he's the youngest of 6) was 18 the drinking age in Illinois was 19 for beer and wine for both genders and 21 for hard liquor. My uncle turned 21 four weeks after the drinking age changed to 21 for anything with alcohol.

When I was 18 the drinking age in Illinois was 21 but it was still 18 in Wisconsin. So I did a lot of crossing the Cheese Curtain to drink legally. Having a friend whose family had a summer house on Lake Geneva helped as well. We had somewhere local to crash.

The real enemy is the federal government, forcing the 21 drinking age on us. These kids should be able to drink in the local bars. And let the police worry about whatever bad things people start doing after they get drunk.

Back when the drinking age was 18 (here in the East, at least), it seemed like most colleges had a Pub on campus that you could walk to. Then you walked back to your dorm. End of story.

"The real enemy is the federal government, forcing the 21 drinking age on us."

The Federal (Army anyway) policy when I went into the service was that as long as you were active duty, you could drink, so I was legal at 17 on post. It's still my biggest beef with the 21 mandate: old enough to sign up and die for your country at 18, but not old enough to buy a beer. Flat wrong, IMHO.

Quayle, my older brother went to high school when Wisconsin's drinking age was 18. For kids held back a year, they could legally drink during their Jr year in high school. So you had kids in 11th grade going to the bar during lunch time and slamming cocktails.

Cops can say they've seen kegs ... and they still need a warrant to come in. To bypass this is one expensive lawsuit for the "city." Which means from out of the taxpayers, there, the money goes straight into the pockets of lawyers.

Doesn't stop "keg parties."

HOWEVER, if a "keg party" gets loud enough. And, some of the drunken kids are sick on the lawn ... AND, the neighbors call in a "NOISE NUISANCE" there are plenty of laws the cops can use against those kids ... Who will now have to ask their parents to hire lawyers.

Business is business.

Stupid if the police exceed their authority and enter without a warrant. Because then what can they do?

Judges aren't in a policeman's pocket.

Cases that don't meet the standards of an arrest are thrown out of court. (Wisely.) Otherwise? They just lead to lawsuits.

I've been to parties (among adults), where the caterers bring the kegs.

And, yes, the kids can drink. It's not that big a deal if your teenager likes drinking a beer. Some are even particular on the brand they want. (Yellow piss water. I can't tell that there are differences between brands.)

Alex wrote:so garage - you think the police should have this kind of power?

So far I see no reply from garage. Qui tacet consentiret, as they say.

Unfortunately, we conservatives have been guilty in the past of wanting to excessively restrain private behavior. However, the Liburils have done more than their fair share, though it hasn't made them content since they can't rest until private opinions are controlled as well.

I find it interesting that back in the 1910s, Federal prohibition of alcohol was generally understood to require a Constitutional amendment. A mighty foolish amendment to ratify, and one that had to be repealed via another amendment.

But no Constitutional amendment was ever ratified to allow the Feds to make morphine a "controlled substance," to ban the use of marijuana, etc. Congress merely arrogated the power unto itself.

So when Mothers against Drunk Driving demanded selective prohibition of booze for 18 to 21 year olds, Congress did a little bit more arrogating.

Prohibition of marijuana, cocaine, and heroin hasn't worked, either, but in trying to uphold it, the Supreme Court has been persuaded to shred Amendment Number 4 (when it hasn't back-pedaled on the commerce clause).

Alcohol and drug prohibition corrupts every legal system that tries to enact and enforce it.